As for evo professors, there are dozens of formal debates between them and creationist scientists on YouTube. In every one of them the creationist destroys the evo. Watch them all & see. I've done it twice myself. It's easy. All one must do is restrict thier discussion to science and not use assumption in their assertions & they stand with egg on their face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience. This is because evolutionism is purely assumption, presumption, and speculation.

"As for evo professors, there are dozens of formal debates between them and creationist scientists on YouTube. In every one of them the creationist destroys the evo."

Sure, if by "destroys" you mean "buries the poor science defender in a mountain of bovine feces so fast that he can't possibly shovel away the lies and nonsense fast enough to be able to breathe, let alone refute them coherently."

"Watch them all & see. I've done it twice myself. It's easy. All one must do is restrict thier discussion to science and not use assumption in their assertions & they stand with egg on their face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience. This is because evolutionism is purely assumption, presumption, and speculation. "

Reverse creation and evolution in this treatment, using science to promote evolution and disprove creationism, and this makes perfect sense. How on Earth you've managed to confuse the two here eludes me completely.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: There can be no debate on the veracity of the theory of evolution. It is proven. Sure, there a few things that need working out, some major, some minor. But to pretend that you're taking part in a rational, intellectual discussion by shaking your finger and telling someone that an entity that no one has ever seen (or will ever see, for that matter) decided to just poof it into existence is pretty much the defition of "delusion".

And don't even get me started on the claim that any evidence anywhere could ever suggest this conclusion, even implicitly.

Creationists raise multiple objections to evolution, each of which would require many hours to refute to a lay audience who doesn't know science. They also often simply lie. When one side is proposing a theory that takes years to learn and understand, and the other is simply saying "Goddidit" and offering false evidence that the audience doesn't know enough to spot, it's not surprising that an ignorant audience would think the scientists have lost.

Fortunately, we don't submit science to a vote by dumb-assed redneck fundamentalist audiences who don't know shit about the subject. Creationists are free to submit their "proof" for review by people who understand the subject and can spot their bullshit. They have never done so. Never. Not once. Not in the entire history of the debate.